Judge Rules that Federal Bureaucrats are permitted to negligently assault the People if it's related to an enforcement action

Story dated 06 May 2005

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore "ruled against awarding damages to 13 people who were tear-gassed by immigration agents during the raid to seize 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez five years ago." Well, that's great. But wait, it gets better. "Justice Department attorneys argued at trial that the tear-gassing of bystanders was "an unavoidable consequence" during the April 22, 2000 raid, which led to the boy's eventual return to Cuba with his father." Michael K. Moore accepted that argument. What's wrong with that? Well, for one thing, this so-called "impartial" judge barred all evidence of anti-Cuban bias on the part of the storm troopers that seized Elian Gonzales. While such evidence isn't admissible to prove that the bureaucrats assaulted bystanders (Cubans), it does go to motive. Nice to see that our judges are willing to suppress the truth so they can hand down rulings that favor assaults against the People by government agents.

In my opinion, this ruling is just another example of institutional corruption on the part of our government. So long as we continue to allow the state to engage in actions that would be torts, or even crimes, if the People did it individually, we will never bring the state back under our control. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: If I were a demolition company, and if the city had hired me to demolish a decaying building, I would be liable for any injuries I caused. If, for example, I laid some of the dynamite wrong and debris from the building hit a bystander in the head, there is no way a judge would by my explanation that the injury was "an unavoidable consequence" of blasting. In the case that Michael K. Moore presided over, though, this wasn't an accident. The armed federal bureaucrats deliberately fired upon the People. And this is excused as being an unavoidable consequence of kidnapping a kid to hand him back over to a murderer? Lest you think that Michael K. Moore was within his discretion to rule against the People, "[A]ttorney Michael Hurley, representing 12 bystanders . . . argued that agents went beyond the raid plan, which called for the use of gas only after an order to repel "a mass breach" of demonstrators at a barricade was given. He said no order was given, and there was no major breach."
---------What are some of the most frightening words a free American can hear? "We're from the government . . . We're here to help."

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 2:40 PM

_____________________________________________